The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 69 could not be sustained solely on the basis of a seized loose sheet without independent evidence proving payment of on-money. It upheld the deletion after finding that the Revenue failed to corroborate the alleged unexplained investment.
The High Court upheld the Tribunals finding that an uncorroborated loose Excel sheet could not sustain an addition of alleged on-money. It ruled that the Tribunal’s factual findings disclosed no perversity or substantial question of law.
The ITAT Jaipur held that a remittance received from a foreign employer under a retirement plan did not amount to concealment of foreign income or assets. It deleted the Rs.10 lakh penalty after accepting the assessee’s bona fide explanation.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 43 of the Black Money Act was not justified where foreign bank deposits arose from overseas employment income and related interest was regularly disclosed in India. The Tribunal treated the omission as a bona fide mistake based on the facts of the case.
The Tribunal ruled that recording satisfaction in the assessment order is mandatory before initiating penalty under Section 271D. In the absence of such satisfaction, the penalties were deleted.
The ITAT held that penalties under Sections 271D and 271E could not be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction regarding violations of Sections 269SS and 269T in the assessment order. The Revenue’s appeals were dismissed.
The High Court ruled that the relevant date for filing refund claims is the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange under the substituted notification. The refund claims were held to be beyond the limitation period.
The Delhi High Court held that the pre-deposit requirement introduced by the third proviso to Section 74(1) of the DVAT Act could not apply to returns filed before the amendment. The objections were directed to be heard without insisting on any pre-deposit.
The ITAT held that assessments under Section 153A were invalid because no search warrant was issued in the assessee’s name. As the foundational assessment was void, the consequential Section 263 revision orders were also quashed.
The ITAT held that limitation under Section 153B must be determined based on the assessee’s own last panchanama despite a joint search warrant. As the assessments were completed beyond the prescribed period, they were quashed.
